When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.12) held that a suit instituted seeking possession of immovable property on the ground that the defendant's sale deed is void is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, rather than the shorter 3-year period under Article 59 of the Act. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that where possession is claimed over property by the defendant based on a forged and void sale deed, he suit can be filed within 12 years, as such possession is treated as adverse to the plaintiff. “Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff.”, the Court observed. The case relates to the dispute over agricultural land in Haryana. The legal heirs of the Appellant-Defendant claimed ownership based on a 1973 sale deed. The heirs of the original plaintiff-Respondent, argued her signature was forged, she never received any payment, and the deed was therefore void. They filed a suit in 1984 seeking possession of her one-third share. The issue was whether a plaintiff's suit, filed 11 years after the alleged sale, was barred by limitation.The defendant argued it was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which allows only 3 years to "cancel or set aside an instrument" from the date of knowledge. Rejecting the Appellant-defendant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed that Article 59 applies only to voidable instruments i.e., those which are prima facie valid but susceptible to being set aside for fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. As the 1973 sale deed was declared void ab initio and never executed by the plaintiff-respondent, the Court held it to be a nullity. When the document in question is void ab initio/or void, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary since such a transaction would be non-est in the eyes of law, owing to it being a nullity. Reference was made to Prem Singh v. Birbal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353.Reference was made to the recent judgment in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 466which held that a person who is not a party to an instrument would not be obliged in law to seek its cancellation. In State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar reported in 2000 SCC OnLine SC 522, it was held that as far as void and non-est documents are concerned, it would be enough for the plaintiff to file a simpliciter suit for possession to which Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply. Reference was made to Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar and Others reported in (2022) 18 SCC 489 which held that if a sale deed is executed without the payment of price, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, and would be void.In the present case, the Court noted that in the absence of the sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void and the plaintiff would not be required to seek its cancellation. Therefore, Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be said to be applicable to the present facts."To put it simply, in the eyes of the law, the plaintiff could not be said to have executed the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the date of knowledge that the possession of the defendant was adverse to that of the plaintiff," the Court said.The Court concluded that the High Court committed an error insofar as observing that it is Article 59 and not Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which would apply to the case in handCause Title: SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN VERSUS JAGAN DEVI & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 900Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. R. Bala Subarmanyam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Himanshu Sharma, AOR Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Varun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kamlesh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, AOR Mr. Tanmay Nagar, Adv. Mr. Shamli Verma,Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv.

When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags